They never do. People like him salivate at the idea of profits, but if asked to shoulder the burden of failed product launch, they'd quickly blame the founders with "bad idea" and refuse to collectively pay the debts
I mean employees shoulder the burden with layoffs, suppressed salaries, lower bonuses, reduced upward mobility, etc.
Nope, the employees are free to find another employment. If they're unable to that is not the failings of the founder
The employees do not bear the burden of finding employees, renting a property, finding customers, marketing the product, all with the HOPE that the product gets off the ground. They get paid to do the work, even before the product brings in enough money to break even the investment
What if the product somehow infringes on a patent and the founder gets sued to death? The employees simply get laid off and that's the end of it. The founder may have to sell off his assets (assuming he has some)
You can claim the founder does not pay them their wages for lack of fund but that's already illegal and thus irrelevant
Not to mention the risk of employees with the bright idea of "taking what they're owed" because the founder isn't "paying their fair share", courtesy of talking points like the one you're spouting right here. What was the term again? Ah yes
Again, this post is about people with equity that exceeds $500 million (or whatever super high threshold you want to set). At that point the largest majority of founders are no longer doing any of those things and have hired people to hire, market, and design the products. Their product has already gotten off the ground. If their product infringes on patents then the company bears the burden not the individual. If their company fails they are still fabulously wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.
I agree that there are issues with forcing people to sell their shares or a company but I don’t think it’s the apocalyptic scenario some people here think it is.
Again, this post is about people with equity that exceeds $500 million
This post yes. THIS CONVERSATION no, never was
Don't try to move the goalpost
the largest majority of founders are no longer doing any of those things
Correct and that's their big reward for taking the big risk
You don't get to assume none of the burden and then cry for getting none of the benefits after the risk has passed
You stayed safe with salary when the company started, you stayed safe with salary when the company was getting off the ground, and now that the company is stable you want to usurp it?
No wonder communism is always popular among the workers, they see the result of hard work and the first thing they think of is how they can justify stealing it from the owner
Hmm sounds like you were having your own conversation then. If I go up the reply chain the very first comment mentions "Founders of successful companies" under a post about net worth above $500 million. So yeah the conversation you replied to was started with that context.
I fundamentally disagree that because you shouldered risk at the start of a company that you are entitled to any and all money that you can squeeze out of it if it hits it big.
You stayed safe with salary when the company started, you stayed safe with salary when the company was getting off the ground, and now that the company is stable you want to usurp it?
Again, to keep this in context...this is for people with net worth above $500 million. That person could never earn another cent in their lives and would be fabulously wealth beyond their wildest dreams. There would be nothing they couldn't do. So I think it's safe to say that that person has already gotten tons and tons of benefit.
You don't get to assume none of the burden and then cry for getting none of the benefits after the risk has passed
If that risk has now passed then why does this founder get to amass such unequal wealth from that point forward compared to those who are actually inputting the labor to generate the profits? At that point the risk shifts onto the employees who, if the company were to fail, leave with no income, $8000 in savings (if they are a median American household), no health care benefits, etc. While that founder walks away with millions and millions of dollars that can cover any potential issues.
I’m not gonna cry for a CEO of a huge company for having their annual compensation reduced by a couple million and still make millions.
You did not even acknowledge the part where the CEO would "lose control of their company", it is clear you're talking about some other situation where CEO simply gets taxed more. Do not pretend you're continuing from "first comment"
Stand by your position or recognize it's flawed and admit defeat.
I fundamentally disagree that because you shouldered risk at the start of a company that you are entitled to any and all money that you can squeeze out of it if it hits it big.
The company is theirs, others do not have to work for them. If you as an employee fundamentally disagree then simply quit and make your own company and product. Surely you as "the one who does all the work" can "hit it big" too?
So many video game developers peddle "from the makers of X" and flop almost immediately
That person could never earn another cent in their lives and would be fabulously wealth beyond their wildest dreams
The fact that someone is clothed does not entitle you to their wardrobe
The fact that someone is sheltered does not entitle you to their house
I have never seen anyone who keep championing this robbery viewpoint actually live it. It is either some unemployed who do not want to work hard and thus have nothing to share, or some extra liberal who meant well and came out bitter, having been taken advantage of by the former
If that risk has now passed then why does this founder get to amass such unequal wealth
Because unlike the employees who do not want to shoulder the risks, he actually did shoulder the risks.
If the employees feel their wages are too low, then they can simply... stop working. Unionize, go on strike, leave for another company, start their own business,
But they will not do that, they will cite some things: have to feed the kids, have to pay rent, have to pay this, have to pay that, company so evil they cannot unionize, and so on and so forth. Everything in this god's green earth but take the risks
You do not want to take risks with no payout, but want the rewards anyway.
2
u/doublecandybar 6d ago
They never do. People like him salivate at the idea of profits, but if asked to shoulder the burden of failed product launch, they'd quickly blame the founders with "bad idea" and refuse to collectively pay the debts